If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Nobody gets a tax freeze. The improved property pays more as the value rises. The extra dough collected goes to the tif pot and the taxpayers outside the tif district pay to the schools the money that went into the tif pot.

Nobody gets a tax freeze. The improved property pays more as the value rises. The extra dough collected goes to the tif pot and the taxpayers outside the tif district pay to the schools the money that went into the tif pot.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was incorrect about that. The amount that taxing bodies (schools, the village, park district, etc.) receive from all properties in the district is frozen for 23 years, but the owner of the subsidized development still pays the increased taxes on his or her bill. The amount collected over the flat base rate is the “increment”, and that goes in the pot.

BUT Apex 400’s developer is asking for $800,000 of this pot up front, before they’ve paid a dime of increased taxes. A handout. Because, according to the spirit of a TIF district, the parcel is too “blighted” to attract development without a huge subsidy from taxpayers. It’s a tax refund in advance!

I hope my fumbling through the basics of TIF financing helps someone else understand it. And that the key point is that we are all providing a handout to a private developer for a project with questionable benefit to the community.

I’m not entirely against this development, I just want to see it get better. And I think Glen Ellyn residents have a right to get some concessions from the developer since we are forking over TIF funds.

In watching the developer presentation from last night (~the first 1:15), they (including the main representative) appear to be knowledgeable and have listened to the immediate concerns of those in the village who oppose select items from the development and have made changes reflecting that. The primary issue that separates those who oppose from those who support the development seems to hinge mainly on the height (5 stories vs 4 stories). The large majority, however do support this type of development (i.e. mixed residential and commercial space). The developer seems firm that the financials don't work for them with the removal of the top floor and loss of ~30 units even with a proposed shift of those units to either replace the public parking lot or shift to underground parking. Nothing that was presented or discussed would seem to change the two opinions.

So Trustee Senak, during the roll call vote, gave a speech that ended with him (verbally) resigning and walking off the dais. He never stated his vote. And the Village Attorney stated that there are a few hoops to resigning a trustee position, including that it must be done in writing, and so it technically isn't official yet. Thus his vote was recorded as an abstention.

Some takeaways in case people don't want to listen to the whole thing:

The TIF incentive back to the developer was increased from $800K to $1.36MM in consideration for some addtitional brick along hillside, an increase in a horizontal length of limestone that breaks up the facade on the south an a portion of the east faces, and loss of rentable space in the Northeast and Southeast corners of the fifth floor. The developer agreed to knock these two corners down to lessen the imposing feel of the building as you first approach. But the rest of the fifth story is still in tact.

The Diocese lawyer (the land is owned by the Diocese of Joliet, not St. Pets), said that they are in support of the project but takes no positions on building height/looks, etc. She also stated that they were open to a land swap of the western portion of the Village's thin lot that goes all the way to Glenwood in exchange for the Church-owned parcel due north of the two-story office building on Hillside. That would have allowed the development to spread westward and (maybe?) go down to four stories. But that concept was touched on earlier in the meeting and later again as one of many options discussed and discarded.

Interestingly, the owner of the aforementioned office building on Hillside said he'd never been approached to sell his property. I thought that was kinda weird. Makes me wonder if Z+O Architects had ever been approached. But even so, getting that office building lot and doing the Pets land-swap would have made this thing look very different.

So Trustee Senak, during the roll call vote, gave a speech that ended with him (verbally) resigning and walking off the dais. He never stated his vote. And the Village Attorney stated that there are a few hoops to resigning a trustee position, including that it must be done in writing, and so it technically isn't official yet. Thus his vote was recorded as an abstention.

Some takeaways in case people don't want to listen to the whole thing:

The TIF incentive back to the developer was increased from $800K to $1.36MM in consideration for some addtitional brick along hillside, an increase in a horizontal length of limestone that breaks up the facade on the south an a portion of the east faces, and loss of rentable space in the Northeast and Southeast corners of the fifth floor. The developer agreed to knock these two corners down to lessen the imposing feel of the building as you first approach. But the rest of the fifth story is still in tact.

The Diocese lawyer (the land is owned by the Diocese of Joliet, not St. Pets), said that they are in support of the project but takes no positions on building height/looks, etc. She also stated that they were open to a land swap of the western portion of the Village's thin lot that goes all the way to Glenwood in exchange for the Church-owned parcel due north of the two-story office building on Hillside. That would have allowed the development to spread westward and (maybe?) go down to four stories. But that concept was touched on earlier in the meeting and later again as one of many options discussed and discarded.

Interestingly, the owner of the aforementioned office building on Hillside said he'd never been approached to sell his property. I thought that was kinda weird. Makes me wonder if Z+O Architects had ever been approached. But even so, getting that office building lot and doing the Pets land-swap would have made this thing look very different.

In the end, I still think this thing is too tall.

Was able to go back and watch the rest of the presentation. Yes, quite a saucy ending. I guess small town village politics mirror the climate in Washington.

Let's not go there. At the end of the day, this is a disagreement over a development in small suburban America. The sun will still rise and fall. You just won't be able to see much of it on South Main Street.

Let's not go there. At the end of the day, this is a disagreement over a development in small suburban America....

True but not entirely true. For the opposition party, this is about deceit. Word on the street (or from a friend that I trust more than any member of the board), is that the public/dissenters were told there would be no vote until all questions were answered - and that this turned out to be patently untrue as the vote occurred despite the open issues. They claim they were lied to by President McGinley. They also claim this was the reason Senak tried to resign.

Well, now they’re organizing a group to fight this ... and they will be well financed and are no dummies ... this should get good.

True but not entirely true. For the opposition party, this is about deceit. Word on the street (or from a friend that I trust more than any member of the board), is that the public/dissenters were told there would be no vote until all questions were answered - and that this turned out to be patently untrue as the vote occurred despite the open issues. They claim they were lied to by President McGinley. They also claim this was the reason Senak tried to resign.

Is this related to the very very end of the video where Trustee Fasules was asking audience member (and former Village Trustee/Pres) Mike Formento if he ever remembered them voting on an Ordinance without a second reading?

I'd have to listen to it again (and I'm not sure I'm that interested), but I recall that the reasons he was giving were not about being lied to but rather about the failure of his ability to influence his fellow board members, the failure of this Board to respect decisions of the past Boards (about what the character of the downtown should be) and the failure of this Board to listen to the people, etc.

He really really wanted this thing to be four levels. He thought getting rid of the public parking could effect that. He also thought they should entertain other possibilities considering the St. Pets land swap and maybe the office building. He got outvoted 4-3(ish), picked up his ball, and went home.

For what its worth, I don't think a delay in voting would have changed the minds of the four yes votes. That was my impression of what they said and how they carried themselves in the meeting.

I'd have to listen to it again (and I'm not sure I'm that interested), but I recall that the reasons he was giving were not about being lied to but rather about the failure of his ability to influence his fellow board members, the failure of this Board to respect decisions of the past Boards (about what the character of the downtown should be) and the failure of this Board to listen to the people, etc.

He really really wanted this thing to be four levels. He thought getting rid of the public parking could effect that. He also thought they should entertain other possibilities considering the St. Pets land swap and maybe the office building. He got outvoted 4-3(ish), picked up his ball, and went home.

For what its worth, I don't think a delay in voting would have changed the minds of the four yes votes. That was my impression of what they said and how they carried themselves in the meeting.

Candidly, I don’t really care either.

And i don’t know the answers to any of your questions - I’m just reporting the news as described to me, editorialized as it may be by my source.